Reihana v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT CHRISTCHURCH Decision No. 73 /98 IN THE MATTER of The Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 AND IN THE MATTER of an Appeal pursuant to Section 91 of the Act BETWEEN TONI COLIN REIHANA DCA 117/97 Appellant AND ACCIDENT REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION INSURANCE CORPORATION a body corporate duly constituted under the provisions of the said Act Respondent HEARD on the 26th day of March 1998 APPEARANCES: Mr T C Reihana in person Mr S Condie for respondent DIRECTION OF JUDGE MJ BEATTIE This is one of three appeals which the appellant has against decisions of the Corporation relating to various entitlements claimed by the appellant under the Act. This particular appeal relates to a decision of the Corporation dated 2 26 February 1997 whereby it suspended the appellant's weekly compensation for his alleged non-co-operation with a rehabilitation programme. On 6 March 1996 the appellant signed an individual rehabilitation programme in which it was noted "to obtain full time paid employment at conclusion in 1996, following study at Canterbury University, to eliminate the need for weekly compensation payments". Pursuant to that end the Corporation agreed to pay the course fees for the appellant's University study for the 1996 academic year for Legal Systems, stage 1 History and stage 1 Maori. At the end of that academic year the Corporation was advised by the University of Canterbury that the appellant had obtained passes in History and Maori with grades B- and B respectively but had failed Legal Systems with a D. On the basis of that result the Corporation determined that further payment for University study for the appellant was not likely to be a cost effective pathway for his return to paid employment and that there were other avenues of employment that could be pursued. To that end it made a decision not to further assist the appellant with any University study. The appellant sought a review of that decision. In tandem with that decision not to provide further assistance for University study was the Corporation's requirements firstly that he attend for an assessment with Sentinel Occupational Health for a functional assessment as to his capacity for work and current restrictions on the same, and secondly, 3 that he attend a career service course to assist him to return to employment within his physical capabilities. It is contended by the Corporation that despite it warning the appellant that he was required to comply with that direction as required by section 64 of the Act, he did not do so and that it was a result of his refusal that his weekly compensation was suspended. For his part, the appellant contends that his refusal is because he was dissatisfied with the Corporation's decision regarding his further University education and he was seeking to have that matter determined before embarking on any other vocational rehabilitation programme. The review hearing of both decisions was set down for hearing at the same time but at the specific request of the appellant he wished the review hearing of the Corporation's decision to suspend weekly compensation only to proceed and, a review hearing in that regard did take place on 18 March 1997. In his decision, the Review Officer, advised that having considered all the information on the file he determined that the issue of the suspension of weekly compensation could not be dealt within isolation from the Corporation's decision declining to provide continued assistance with his University study. The Review Officer considered the matters were so inter- connected that it would be impossible to decide one issue without determining the other. Accordingly he ruled that his decision on the weekly compensation's suspension should be adjourned until such time as the question of the University funding had been determined or that this matter be reheard in conjunction with the hearing of the issue of University funding. 4 That is where matters stand at present. The Review Officer has specifically directed that his decision is an interim decision only. In those circumstances, I find that there is no substantive issue in respect of which the Review Officer has made a decision and there is therefore no decision which can be the subject of an appeal to this Court at the present time. The Review Officer has made it quite clear that he was adjourning the review hearing on the question of suspension of compensation and in the circumstances of this matter, I find that that decision was entirely appropriate. Accordingly and for the avoidance of any doubt, I direct that the whole of the matter to which this appeal relates be remitted back to the Review Officer for his consideration in conjunction with or subsequent to the review hearing of the Corporation's decision dated 2 February 1997 refusing to grant further vocational rehabilitation for University study for the appellant. DATED at WELLINGTON this 20" day of April 1998 M J Beattie District Court Judge Reihana2.doc(gm)